DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see remarks filed 8/13/2026, have been fully considered are addressed below:
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous objections to claims 2-4, 6, and 7, however, new objections have been made in view of the amendments to claims 11 and 12.
Applicants’ amendments do not overcome the 112b rejections of claims 5 and 6 because the amendments do not reflect the change recited in the remarks page 5 which state that claim language has been amended to clarify that the aperture ratio of the resist layer in the plated area is measured as the state of the plated area. It appears that claim 5 was intended to be amended to recite “the state of the plated area”, however, it still recites “a state of the plated area”. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-9 and 11-12 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20190348384A1 by Okuzono et al. (hereinafter “Okuzono”; newly cited)
Applicant argues (see remarks page 9) that the cited prior art Mitsuya does not teach "wherein whether the sealing member contact area is normal or abnormal is determined by detecting a distance to the resist layer in the sealing member contact area".
Although the examiner agrees that Mitsuya does not explicitly teach determining whether the sealing member contact area is normal or abnormal, the examiner disagrees that Mitsuya does not teach "detecting a distance to the resist layer in the sealing member contact area". Mitsuya's determination of plate thickness includes a detecting a distance from an upper surface of the resist and is calculated for the entire in-plane surface of the substrate W, including the sealing member contact area substrate seal line 64 ([0107]; [0070]). The plate film thickness, which was determined by detecting a distance to the resist layer, is then used to determine a correction amount of the plating current ([0111]).
This method is similar to the process taught in the applicant's specification. Applicant teaches the substrate state measurement module 130 (control module 800) can determine that the sealed area SA is normal in a case where the detection value is within a preset normal area over the entire sealed area SA in the first example. Also, the substrate state measurement module 130 can determine that there is irregularity in the sealed area SA, which is abnormality, in a case where a detection value outside the normal area is measured ([0051]). For example, in an embodiment, the sealed area SA is normal in a case where a specific number (one or two) distances are detected over the entire sealed area SA and an abnormality, in a case where the detected distances change ([0052]).
Further, Okuzono is relied upon to teach these limitations in the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claims were amended to recite “the at least one white confocal sensor” (claim 11 line 8, claim 12 line 8). However, claim 11 recites “a white confocal sensor” not “at least one white confocal sensor” in line 4. Further, claim 12 now depends from claim 11 which establishes the antecedent basis for the term. Therefore, all recitations of the “white confocal sensor” after claim 11 line 4 should read “the white confocal sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites "an aperture ratio of the resist layer in the plated area is measured as a state of the plated area" Is the "state of the plated area" recited in claim 5 the same as the "state of a plated area" recited in claim 3? Are they different states? For the purposes of examination, "a state of the plated area" recited in claim 5 is interpreted as “the state of the plated area “ based on the applicant’s remarks filed 8/13/2026 page 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the power supply member contact area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the power supply member contact area” is interpreted as “a power supply member contact area”, Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “the power supply member”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the power supply member” is interpreted as “a power supply member”, Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is rejected due to its dependency.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensor moving mechanism” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “sensor moving mechanism” which uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, the limitation on “sensor moving mechanism” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to any device, such as a stage, that can move the sensor in at least a radial direction ([0042] moving mechanism 138 is preferably configured to move the white confocal sensor 136 along a radial direction of the substrate Wf).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5, 7, and 9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200056301A1 by Mitsuya et al (hereinafter "Mitsuya"; previously cited) in view of US20190348384A1 by Okuzono et al. (hereinafter “Okuzono”; newly cited).
Regarding claim 2, Mitsuya teaches a substrate state measurement device (at least Fig. 7) comprising:
a stage ([0073] stage 104b) configured to support a substrate ([0073] substrate W) such that the stage is able to rotate the substrate ([0073]), the substrate including a seed layer ([0043] seed layer is formed on substrate W) and a resist layer formed on the seed layer (Fig. 6 shows resist film; [0072]), ; and
at least one white confocal sensor adapted to measure a plate surface of the substrate supported by the stage ([0069] length measurement sensor 90 shown in FIG. 7 to measure the plating film thickness; may use white lights and confocal methods),
wherein an irregularity state ([0070] height is a state that indicates irregularity) of a sealing member contact area ([0060] substrate seal line 64) is measured on the basis of detection performed by the white confocal sensor on the sealing member contact area ([0070] the entire in-plane surface of the substrate W is subjected to planar measurement and distance measurement; thus the sealing member contact is measured; Fig. 7 shows measurement of sensor 90 goes to edge of wafer W), the sealing member contact area being an area on the substrate which comes into contact with a sealing member ([0060] substrate seal member 66 come into pressure contact with the outer periphery of the substrate W held by the substrate holder 11 at positions along the substrate seal line 64).
Although Mitsuya teaches detecting a distance to the resist layer in the sealing member contact area ([0107]; [0070]; determination of plate thickness includes a detecting a distance from an upper surface of the resist and is calculated for the entire in-plane surface of the substrate W, including the sealing member contact area substrate seal line 64), Mitsuya does not explicitly teach wherein whether the sealing member contact area is normal or abnormal is determined by detecting a distance to the resist layer in the sealing member contact area.
However, Okuzono does address these limitations. Okuzono and Mitsuya are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of substrate inspection.
Okuzono teaches wherein whether an area is normal or abnormal is determined by detecting a distance to the resist layer in the area ([0035] The normal height range means that, for example, the bump 302 is in a range from a height low by a predetermined height (Δh) from a surface of the resist layer 301 to a height equal to or less than the surface of the resist layer 301; [0036] the abnormality in the bump height can be detected by determining that the bump having the height less than the lower-limit value h1). Further, Okuzono teaches the area is an effective imaging range which includes the outer peripheral portion of the substrate W ([0049]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the presence of an abnormality in outer portion of substrate, which is where the sealing member contact area is located, by detecting a distance to the resist layer in the area. Further, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the device from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 Sec. II “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990”). See MPEP 2114 Sec. II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mitsuya to include wherein whether the sealing member contact area is normal or abnormal is determined by detecting a distance to the resist layer in the sealing member contact area as suggested by Okuzono in order to promptly stop substrate processing in the event an abnormality is detected thus increasing production efficiency ([0121]).
Regarding claim 3, Mitsuya modified by Okuzono teaches the substrate state measurement device of claim 2 and Mitsuya further teaches wherein a state ([0070] height is a state; or [0070] aperture ratio) of a plated area is further measured on the basis of detection performed by the at least one white confocal sensor on the plated area on the substrate ([0070] the entire in-plane surface of the substrate W is subjected to planar measurement and distance measurement; thus the plated area is measured; Fig. 7 shows measurement of sensor 90 goes to edge of wafer W).
Regarding claim 4, Mitsuya modified by Okuzono teaches the substrate state measurement device according to claim 3, and further teaches wherein the detection performed by the at least one white confocal sensor on the plated area on the substrate is performed on an area of not more than 25% of the plated area ([0073] length measurement sensor 90 emits a belt-shaped laser beam 91 onto the substrate W, the belt-shaped laser beam is less than 25% of the area of the substrate and plated area; Fig. 7 shows top down view of belt shaped beams 91).
Regarding claim 5, Mitsuya modified by Okuzono teaches the substrate state measurement device according to claim 3, and further teaches wherein an aperture ratio of the resist layer in the plated area is measured as a state of the plated area ([0070]-[0071] actual plating film thickness is then calculated from a difference value and the aperture ratio; (Average value of actual plating film thickness)=(Difference value of average height values)/(Aperture ratio)).
Regarding claim 7, Mitsuya modified by Okuzono teaches the substrate state measurement device according to claim 1, and further teaches a sensor moving mechanism configured to move the at least one white confocal sensor along the plate surface of the substrate ([0072] sensor 90 or the substrate W may be moved in the diametrical and/or circumferential direction; [0073] length measurement sensor 90 is disposed on a stage 104 b that is rotated by an aligner body 104 a).
Regarding claim 9, Mitsuya modified by Okuzono teaches the substrate state measurement device according to claim 2, and further teaches a plating apparatus comprising (at least Fig. 1):
the substrate state measurement device according to claim 2 (at least Fig. 7, see claim 2 above);
a substrate holder including the power supply member and adapted to hold the substrate ([0050] substrate holder 11 may have a contact point (contact) which contacts a peripheral portion of the to-be-plated surface of the substrate W and feeds power from an external power source to the peripheral portion.); and
a plating tank adapted to accommodate a plating solution ([0050] plating tank 10, plating liquid) and perform plating by applying a voltage between the substrate and an anode in a state where the substrate held by the substrate holder and the anode are immersed in the plating solution ([0050] anode has an exposed surface that is opposed to the substrate W; [0044] substrate holder 11 is disposed opposite to the anode electrode. The substrate holder 11 is supplied with voltage from a cathode electrode).
Regarding claim 11, Mitsuya teaches a substrate state measurement method (at least Fig. 7) comprising:
arranging a substrate ([0073] substrate W) on a stage ([0073] stage 104b), the substrate including a seed layer ([0043] seed layer is formed on substrate W) and a resist layer formed on the seed layer (Fig. 6 shows resist film; [0072]);
detecting a sealing member contact area ([0060] substrate seal line 64) by a white confocal sensor ([0069] length measurement sensor 90 shown in FIG. 7 to measure the plating film thickness; may use white lights and confocal methods) while rotating the substrate arranged on the stage ([0073]; [0070] the entire in-plane surface of the substrate W is subjected to planar measurement and distance measurement; thus the sealing member contact is measured; Fig. 7 shows measurement of sensor 90 goes to edge of wafer W), the sealing member contact area being an area on the substrate which comes into contact with a sealing member ([0060] substrate seal member 66 come into pressure contact with the outer periphery of the substrate W held by the substrate holder 11 at positions along the substrate seal line 64); and
measuring an irregularity state ([0070] height is a state that indicates irregularity) of the sealing member contact area on the basis of detection performed by the white confocal sensor ([0070] the entire in-plane surface of the substrate W is subjected to planar measurement and distance measurement; thus the sealing member contact is measured; Fig. 7 shows measurement of sensor 90 goes to edge of wafer W).
Although Mitsuya teaches detecting a distance to the resist layer in the sealing member contact area ([0107]; [0070]; determination of plate thickness includes a detecting a distance from an upper surface of the resist and is calculated for the entire in-plane surface of the substrate W, including the sealing member contact area substrate seal line 64), Mitsuya does not explicitly teach wherein whether the sealing member contact area is normal or abnormal is determined by detecting a distance to the resist layer in the sealing member contact area.
However, Okuzono does address these limitations. Okuzono and Mitsuya are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of substrate inspection.
Okuzono teaches wherein whether an area is normal or abnormal is determined by detecting a distance to the resist layer in the area ([0035] The normal height range means that, for example, the bump 302 is in a range from a height low by a predetermined height (Δh) from a surface of the resist layer 301 to a height equal to or less than the surface of the resist layer 301; [0036] the abnormality in the bump height can be detected by determining that the bump having the height less than the lower-limit value h1). Further, Okuzono teaches the area is an effective imaging range which includes the outer peripheral portion of the substrate W ([0049]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the presence of an abnormality in outer portion of substrate, which is where the sealing member contact area is located, by detecting a distance to the resist layer in the area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mitsuya to include wherein whether the sealing member contact area is normal or abnormal is determined by detecting a distance to the resist layer in the sealing member contact area as suggested by Okuzono in order to promptly stop substrate processing in the event an abnormality is detected thus increasing production efficiency ([0121]).
Regarding claim 12, Mitsuya modified by Okuzono teaches the substrate state measurement method according to claim 11, further comprising:
detecting a plated area on the substrate by a white confocal sensor ([0069] length measurement sensor 90 shown in FIG. 7 to measure the plating film thickness; may use white lights and confocal methods) while rotating the substrate arranged on the stage ([0073]); and
measuring a state ([0070] height is a state; or [0070] aperture ratio) of the plated area on the basis of detection performed by the white confocal sensor ([0070] the entire in-plane surface of the substrate W is subjected to planar measurement and distance measurement; thus the plated area is measured; Fig. 7 shows measurement of sensor 90 goes to edge of wafer W).
Regarding claim 13, Mitsuya modified by Okuzono teaches the substrate state measurement device of claim 2 and Mitsuya further teaches wherein a state ([0070] height is a state) of a power supply member contact area ([0050] peripheral portion of substrate W) is further measured on the basis of detection performed by the at least one white confocal sensor on the power supply member contact area ([0070] the entire in-plane surface of the substrate W is subjected to planar measurement and distance measurement; thus the power supply member contact is measured; Fig. 7 shows measurement of sensor 90 goes to edge of wafer W), the power supply member contact area being an area on the substrate which comes into contact with a power supply member ([0050] substrate holder 11 may have a contact point (contact) which contacts a peripheral portion of the to-be-plated surface of the substrate W and feeds power from an external power source to the peripheral portion).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuya in view Okuzono as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of US20190252213A1 by Koizumi (cited in the IDS; previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Mitsuya modified by Okuzono teaches the substrate state measurement device according to claim 5, and further teaches a storage unit that is used to perform film thickness measurement ([0062]).
Mitsuya is silent as to a storage unit that stores a learning model constructed through machine learning, wherein learning of the learning model is performed by inputting detection information obtained by the at least one white confocal sensor to the learning model, and the aperture ratio of the resist layer in the plated area is measured by using the learning model.
However, Kozumi does address this limitation. Kozumi and Mitsuya are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of substrate inspection.
Koizumi teaches machine learning or the like may be employed in the image recognition processing by the image diagnosis terminal 122 and/or the server 123. The image recognition processing may comprise: collecting image data on the substrate W in normal state and/or in abnormal state as teacher data and learning the image data, using a deep neural network (DNN); and estimating a level of abnormality. The level of abnormality may be estimated from a numerical value converted from the extent of abnormality on the basis of the area, width, and/or length of a region that is different in shade/tint and/or color of the image data ([0072]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use machine learning to perform state measurements using metrology data from a substrate. Further, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the device from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 Sec. II “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990”). See MPEP 2114 Sec. II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mitsuya to include a storage unit that stores a learning model constructed through machine learning, wherein learning of the learning model is performed by inputting detection information obtained by the white confocal sensor to the learning model, and the aperture ratio of the resist layer in the plated area is measured by using the learning model as suggested by Koizumi in order to improve determination accuracy and detection accuracy ([0126]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuya in view Okuzono as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of in view of US20180067058A1 by Horn (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Mitsuya modified by Okuzono teaches the substrate state measurement device according to claim 2, and further teaches wherein the at least one white confocal sensor ([0069] length measurement sensor 90) is adapted to detect a power supply member contact area ([0050] substrate holder 11 may have a contact point (contact) which contacts a peripheral portion of the to-be-plated surface of the substrate W and feeds power from an external power source to the peripheral portion).
Further, although, Mitsuya does not teach wherein the at least one white confocal sensor includes a first white confocal sensor adapted to detect the power supply member contact area and a second white confocal sensor adapted to detect an area other than the power supply member contact area on the substrate, Mitsuya does teach a second embodiment (Fig. 10; [0079]) which uses four length measurement sensors.
Further, Horn does address this limitation. Horn and Mitsuya are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of wafer height inspection.
Horn teaches wherein the at least one white confocal sensor ([0031] white light source 101 may be configured for bright field confocal imaging; confocal illumination system may be configured to illuminate multiple locations on a wafer 105 with multiple points or multiple lines substantially simultaneously [0037] sensor body 103 includes a plurality of sensors 104; [0052] Fig. 2 shows arrangement with 2 sensors) includes a first white confocal sensor adapted to detect the power supply member contact area and a second white confocal sensor adapted to detect an area other than the power supply member contact area on the substrate (since the power supply member contact area is the peripheral area of the wafer, the outmost sensor measures the power supply member contact area, while the innermost sensor measures an area other than the power supply member contact area; Fig. 1 shows at least one sensor at the peripheral area and at least one sensor at another inner area; [0031]; [0037]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use separate sensors to measure different areas on the substrate. Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mitsuya to include wherein the at least one white confocal sensor includes a first white confocal sensor adapted to detect the power supply member contact area and a second white confocal sensor adapted to detect an area other than the power supply member contact area on the substrate as suggested by Horn in order to increase speed and efficiency by performing simultaneous measurements ([0031]; [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210040641 A1 by Nagai (cited in the IDS) teaches a plating apparatus and method wherein the presence or absence of a substrate W which originally has an abnormality in the edge section can also be determined based on the measurement result of the sensor ([0165]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights